1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B87A1D36
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:54:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com (mail-pf1-f174.google.com
[209.85.210.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBAF9A8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:54:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id y15so5424954pfn.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=PzpXzL87Z0Gtg9068ziFTcnnFZYtbpmjO6cpq1vtVyg=;
b=Xv5WcZQv3PEZ5OTu/ViFnTX9UXMyKDZJwRU1bO+Q1p0ca/J6TR/jchv4xFd1ZwHgNA
xkIVb+yKTXTxaCGR+VaqmFfDW3rOQI5VtBCFfScm4nKugkwF7KF2dBqrAJfq3obPoyhx
qJ+OEkXAp6tgXbuixBAzztEmwrrkqPtXvv0iYFr4pKwYltQvZZPNpUrr+cDK1PiBYQGu
wy+sZoEc0E5ApeKKODYqdHDx81mTpIROW6k62b9Y8TSE6gds4sUdyRUW1XYLE+kV9sjX
H3Mhfob/mEiqiGUMSueD/FO0WpmhXnqFNsDYIW3wzIMH4NuAp5QYScxfrJssNo44ziYw
JNkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=PzpXzL87Z0Gtg9068ziFTcnnFZYtbpmjO6cpq1vtVyg=;
b=BSddn9/jVrUdOBMacAhvfCP4JX+/9+H7HYcgW0D+WI9kDOmRUypSsu1yjuC26uXWpS
fI9K9Fe3Z/UJwtecN5CunsvplWwICsTXlNJr9MwRFQodFYANkoOiHkSmOn3ReR1dbsRM
GEpbYOMc9hVwCDd2EfLJlfLlF5wvN9VADjZiib8qcuEr19w7RSDinwwIjAZRI8FbkVkR
mu2atEwEyqb/Ey1MYguch/G3pmk7inkIpsc3ZvQX159zCIhnDO1ysNxnKf2Ogu9Nx+Fy
EV90bXmzhEkldNHU2n+EipyCZ6Mu6SI4BJvdZKefMYSwIN0qL0zCEz0MrXThgPommr74
G1LQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWnBZq6YMbFF5webVEPPz2B2Jsj+awK8dWV7LncCCcp/jpFZmLj
oFEnWHeAjZJc5SvaKEj/+nKVrY04khQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz8dgdX+BttEsLZ5E7H56PRb24Bf2CLFGVixgEz3UwzYA2i8/MrMiMo4fG30E0/UNqd+QKSTg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6fc9:: with SMTP id k192mr7329639pgc.20.1561920887143;
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:29ff:b615:305b:5e87?
([2601:600:a080:16bb:29ff:b615:305b:5e87])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y8sm9799106pfn.52.2019.06.30.11.54.46
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <BF027CD0-FE29-4DD1-AB96-DE92B597AD18@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:54:45 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3F46CDD5-DA80-49C8-A51F-8066680EF347@voskuil.org>
References: <0DBC0DEA-C999-4AEE-B2E1-D5337ECD9405@gmail.com>
<7A10C0F5-E206-43C1-853F-64AE04F57711@voskuil.org>
<EB743E28-8486-4CD5-B9AE-09B5693B27FA@gmail.com>
<708D14A9-D25E-4DD2-8B6E-39A1194A7A00@voskuil.org>
<1A808C88-63FD-4F45-8C95-2B8B4D99EDF5@gmail.com>
<83705370-79FC-4006-BA04-4782AD5BE70B@voskuil.org>
<BF027CD0-FE29-4DD1-AB96-DE92B597AD18@gmail.com>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 19:33:20 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized covenants with taproot enable
riskless or risky lending,
prevent credit inflation through fractional reserve
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:54:48 -0000
Could you please explain the meaning and utility of =E2=80=9Cunforgeable reg=
ister=E2=80=9D as it pertains to such encumbered coins?
The meaning in terms of Bitcoin is clear - the =E2=80=9Cowner=E2=80=9D of ou=
tputs that represent value (i.e. in the ability to trade them for something e=
lse) is recorded publicly and, given Bitcoin security assumptions, cannot be=
faked. What is not clear is the utility of a record of outputs that cannot b=
e traded for something else. You seem to imply that a record is valuable sim=
ply because it=E2=80=99s a record.
e
> On Jun 30, 2019, at 11:35, Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 19:41, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 03:56, Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>>>=20
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>=20
>>>> On Jun 29, 2019, at 23:21, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> What loan? Alice has paid Bob for something of no possible utility to h=
er, or anyone else.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Coins encumbered with the described covenant represent temporary control=
of a scarce resource.
>>>=20
>>> Can this obtain value? That depends on the availability of final control=
and ability to deal with temporary control.
>>=20
>> For something to become property (and therefore have marketable value) re=
quires that it be both scarce and useful. Bitcoin is useful only to the exte=
nt that it can be traded for something else that is useful. Above you are on=
ly dealing with scarcity, ignoring utility.
>=20
> There is a deeper utility of Bitcoin than it can be traded for something e=
lse. That utility is to use its unforgeable register.
> We have only one kind of units in this register and by having covenants we=
would create other kinds that are while encumbered not fungible with the co=
mmon ones.
>=20
> Units are certainly less desirable if encumbered with a debt covenant. You=
say no one would assign them any value.
>=20
> I am not that sure as they still offer the utility of using the unforgeabl=
e register, in this case a register of debt covered by reserves.
> You also doubt forcing debt to be covered by reserves is a good idea, I go=
t that, but suppose we do not discuss this here.
> If there are people who think it is a good idea, then they would find havi=
ng an unforgeable register of it useful and therefore units needed to mainta=
in that register valuable to some extent.
>=20
>>=20
>>> I think you do not show the neccesary respect of the market.
>>=20
>> I=E2=80=99m not sure what is meant here by respect, or how much of it is n=
ecessary. I am merely explaining the market.
>>=20
>=20
> You are not explaining an existing market but claim that market that is no=
t yet there will follow your arguments.
>=20
>>> Your rant reminds me of renowed economists who still argue final control=
Bitcoin can not have value, you do the same proclaiming that temporary cont=
rol of Bitcoin can not have value.
>>=20
>> It seems to me you have reversed the meaning of temporary and final. Bitc=
oin is useful because of the presumption that there is no finality of contro=
l. One presumes an ability to trade control of it for something else. This i=
s temporary control. Final control would be the case in which, at some point=
, it can no longer be traded, making it worthless at that point. If this is k=
nown to be the case it implies that it it worthless at all prior points as w=
ell.
>>=20
>> These are distinct scenarios. The fact that temporary (in my usage) contr=
ol implies the possibility of value does not imply that finality of control d=
oes as well. The fact that (renowned or otherwise) people have made errors d=
oes not imply that I am making an error. These are both non-sequiturs.
>>=20
>>> I say, that temporary control does not have value until means dealing wi=
th it are offered, and that is I work on. Thereafter might obtain value if f=
inal control is deemed too expensive or not attainable, we shall see.
>>=20
>> The analogy to rental of a consumable good does not apply to the case of a=
non-consumable good. If it cannot be traded and cannot be consumed it canno=
t obtain marketable value. To this point it matters not whether it exists.
>>=20
>=20
> I meant with control the control of entries in the register which I think i=
s the deeper utility of Bitcoin. Final control is meant to be the opposite o=
f temporary which is the time limited control with some expiry.
>=20
> Thank you for your thoughts as they help to sharpen my arguments.
>=20
> Best,
>=20
> Tamas Blummer
>=20
>> Best,
>> Eric
>>=20
>>> Tamas Blummer
>>>=20
>>>=20
>=20
|
